Watergate Scandal

Watergate Scandal

Watergate is an impressive hotel, apartment, and office complex that overlooks the Potomac River near an old canal lock. It was built between 1964 and 1971. The name evolved to become an all-embracing label for political corruption, intrigue, and the misuse of presidential authority.

Watergate, in the lexicon of U.S. politics, is simply synonymous with scandal. In the period from 1972 to 1974 the scandal emerged as an interconnected series of events and deeds that would destroy the Richard Nixon presidency and lead to his resignation on August 9, 1974. In its wake, Watergate produced a national crisis in leadership and a lasting sense of national betrayal.

The Watergate crisis began with a burglary on June 17, 1972. A security guard discovered a suspicious tape holding a stairwell door open, and this prompted him to contact Washington police. The police discovered and arrested on the scene Bernard Barker, Virgilio Gonzalez, Eugenio Martinez, James W. McCord, Jr., and Frank Sturgis.


The men were in the process of breaking into the Democratic National Committee Headquarters. They also had wiretapping equipment. McCord, a former CIA operative, was the chief of security at the Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP, or CREEP), and in his possession was the telephone number of E. Howard Hunt, a possible incriminating direct link to the White House.

After a White House dismissal of the affair, the burglary could have passed into obscurity in this 1972 presidential election year if there had not been continuing media attention, driven by the efforts of Washington Post reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward.

Protester: Impeach Nixon!

Making use of FBI sources, the reporters launched a deep probe of the events. The outcome was that the burglary began to appear as one part of a complex dirty-tricks campaign by Nixon cronies.

The basis for such suspicions rested largely with E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy, who were tied to the Special Investigations Unit of the White House, known as the "Plumbers".

This group was active in undermining administration opponents through a variety of nefarious schemes such as breaking into the offices of Daniel Ellsberg, a former Pentagon and State Department employee. As the future would reveal, these actions would have unfortunate consequences for the president.

The Watergate burglary itself had the approval of former attorney general John Mitchell and the support of leading White House personnel such as Charles Colson and John Ehrlichman, in addition to the president’s campaign manager, Jeb Magruder. Few believed that any of these men would have acted without the personal approval of the president.

The Watergate burglars, along with Liddy and Hunt, went on trial in January 1973. All pleaded guilty except McCord and Liddy. All were convicted of burglary, wiretapping, and conspiracy.

The defendants initially refused to talk, and the judge, John Sirica, ordered long sentences unless there was greater cooperation. This brought about McCord’s admission that the campaign was behind the burglary and had arranged payments to guarantee silence.

With the McCord admission, the political stakes were considerably raised, leading to a Senate investigation chaired by Senator Sam Ervin. Watergate was now on the national agenda, and White House staff faced subpoenas to testify.

Nixon’s close advisers H. R. Haldeman and Ehrlichman resigned, and White House counsel John Dean was fired. A new attorney general, Elliot Richardson, was also appointed. Richardson appointed Archibald Cox to head an independent inquiry.

The Senate investigation was televised from May 17 until August 7, 1973, and many former White House officials testified, including John Dean. The testimonies produced disastrous results for the president.

The situation became even more complex after a White House official, Alexander Butterfield, admitted the existence of a White House taping system, which seemed to offer a way of finding the truth. The tapes then became part of the subpoena process.

Nixon thought that this particular intrusion represented an attack on executive privilege. He ordered the attorney general to dismiss Cox if he didn’t cancel the subpoena. This led to what has come to be known as the "Saturday Night Massacre", which produced the resignation of Richardson and his deputy, William Ruckelshaus.

Nixon appointed a new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, and as a desperate compromise gesture released the tapes in an edited form. The tapes seemed to cause not less but more distress for Nixon, particularly after it was revealed that there had been an 18-minute erasure as well as many additional erasures.

Ultimately, the issue of the tapes was resolved on July 24, 1974, when the Supreme Court in its decision United States v. Nixon denied the presidential claim of executive privilege.

Nixon’s position throughout 1974 had also been progressively undercut through an ever-increasing series of guilty pleas by White House associates. In January campaign aide Herbert Porter admitted lying to the FBI; in February Nixon’s lawyer, Herbert Kalmbach, pleaded guilty to illegal electioneering; and in March the so-called Watergate Seven were all indicted for conspiring to interfere with the Watergate investigation.

To make matters worse, other Watergate grand jury indictments followed in April when Ed Reinecke, a lieutenant governor of California and a Nixon campaigner, was charged with three counts of perjury. Also in April Dwight Chapin, Nixon’s appointments secretary, admitted perjury and lying to the Senate and a grand jury.

The situation for Nixon was now without redemption. The House of Representatives began preparations for impeachment following a July 27, 1974, vote of 27 to 11 by the House Judiciary Committee on obstruction of justice charges. Other impeachment articles followed on July 29 and 30.

The release in early August of a damning tape from June 23, 1972, which revealed Nixon and Haldeman discussing possibilities for blocking FBI investigations, proved to be the tamat blow that toppled Nixon from power.

Without support in the House and little promise of support in the Senate, Richard M. Nixon announced to the nation on August 8, 1974, that he would resign as of noon on August 9, 1974, becoming the first U.S. president to do so.

He was succeeded by Gerald Ford. Ford, on September 8, pardoned Nixon and thus saved him from criminal prosecution. Until his death, Nixon maintained his innocence. Watergate poisoned the political waters of the nation and left a jaundiced, cynical view of politicians and their promises.

Richard Nixon leaving White House

When stripped of their offices and the emblems of power, the politicos appeared disgraceful, dishonest purveyors of power for power’s sake without regard for the well-being of the democracy. This would create a lasting legacy of paranoid suspicions and give rise to a climate receptive to conspiracy theories.

On a more positive note, the events surrounding Watergate led to reforms in campaign financing as well as the passage of the Freedom of Information Act in 1986. The media became a much stronger voice, particularly as the nation moved toward news coverage on a 24-7 basis.

This led to the quandary of instant analysis, often incorrect, which can shape policy and possibly undermine the best democratic interests of the nation. The cult of personality and celebrity has now perhaps replaced the cult of power.

Drugs

Drugs

Apart from the possibility that the excessive utilisation of for sure drugs tin brand the user paranoid, illicit drugs conduct hold been at the pump of a number of conspiracy theories over the yesteryear century. One cluster of conspiracy theories surrounds the utilisation of opiates, together with some other focuses on marijuana.

Opiates

Opiates—opium, morphine, together with heroin—have figured largely inward drug conspiracies. One of the earliest conspiracy theories surrounding opiates inward the U.S. concerned Chinese immigrants on the West Coast. When Chinese immigrants began arriving inward the U.S. to a greater extent than or less 1870, their habit of smoking opium drew condemnation.

Chinese laborers, derogatorily called “coolies,” were essential to the completion of the showtime transcontinental railroad, but when economical depression beset the reason inward the belatedly nineteenth century, white fears of task competition, combined amongst Chinese opium smoking, led to repression of the Chinese population.


Nativism, xenophobia, together with the conviction that opium smoking posed a threat to U.S. club helped Pb to the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, which barred Chinese immigration to the United States. Other repression came inward the shape of local together with province laws that targeted Chinese Americans, equally good equally harassment yesteryear native-born whites, especially on the West Coast. In 1875 a San Francisco City ordinance banned opium smoking.

Stories of Chinese immigrants who lured white females into prostitution, along amongst media depictions of the Chinese equally depraved together with unclean, bolstered the enactment of anti-opium laws inward xi states betwixt 1877 together with 1900. On the federal level, inward 1909 President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Opium Exclusion Act, which forbade the importation of smoking opium.

Although no fully formed conspiracy theory emerged amidst anti-opium advocates, yesteryear the plow of the century the association betwixt Chinese immigrants, opium, together with societal decay illustrated the widespread belief that opium smoking (or the consumption of whatever psychoactive centre for nonmedical purposes) threatened to erode the Anglo-Saxon race’s might to propagate itself. Put some other way, during the Social Darwinist–infused days of the belatedly nineteenth together with early on twentieth centuries, drug addiction amidst white Americans was idea to termination inward racial suicide.

More delineated conspiracy theories concerning opiates materialized during together with afterward World War II. Propagating numerous drug conspiracies was Harry J. Anslinger, who served equally commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) from 1930 to 1962. Anslinger had an imposing physical appearance: somber-faced, bald, thick-chested, together with square-jawed, he resembled a cross betwixt Benito Mussolini together with the infamous British satanist Aleister Crowley (Sloman, xi).

As caput of the FBN, Anslinger dominated U.S. drug policy for 30 years, during which fourth dimension he maintained the link betwixt foreigners together with drugs, brought a high degree of bureaucratic monastic tell to federal drug policy, embarked upon a effort to demonize together with limit marijuana, melded antinarcotics policy amongst U.S. unusual policy together with safety issues, together with sought repressive measures to bargain amongst addicts together with dealers.

During World War II Anslinger charged the Japanese amongst conspiring to spread narcotics addiction throughout the West, remarking that a drugsodden patch could offering petty resistance to an invading Japanese military.

The Japanese were flooding Communist People's Republic of China amongst narcotics during the state of war but no prove corroborated their supposed programme to foment addiction inward the United States. Similarly, inward the early on mutual frigidness state of war years, Anslinger unrelentingly maintained that heroin addiction was role of Communist China’s programme for subversion inward the United States.

Lacking whatever proof of such a conspiracy, Anslinger withal fostered stories together with images of syringe-wielding Chinese soldiers poised to conduct hold over the gratis world together with outlined the details of the Chinese Communist Party’s heroin conspiracy inward his 1953 majority The Traffic inward Narcotics.

Anslinger’s conspiracy theories demonstrated the link betwixt federal drug policy together with national safety issues, which is to say that the FBN’s claims were inward line amongst America’s anticommunist mission inward Asia. The commissioner never recanted his accusations together with his claims persisted into the 1970s.

In a reversal of Anslinger’s claims, 2 other drug conspiracies emerged during the mutual frigidness war, which charged the U.S. government, non unusual nations, amongst spreading narcotics addiction together with using drugs for undemocratic purposes.

One conspiracy theory defendant the CIA, from the 1950s through the 1980s, of willingly allying itself amongst narcotics (opium, morphine, together with heroin) traffickers inward Burma, Thailand, Laos, Afghanistan, together with Islamic Republic of Pakistan equally role of the agency’s anticommunist crusade inward Asia.

By supplying these unsavory elements amongst funds, equipment, together with intelligence, the CIA provided a zone of protection to a greater extent than or less drug lords together with blocked investigations of their clients’ drug running. Ultimately, the CIA contributed to the global narcotics merchandise yesteryear sanctioning their allies’ involvement.

Researchers, such equally Alfred W. McCoy, conduct hold unearthed prove corroborating the link betwixt the CIA together with narcotics traffickers inward Asia but deny the existence of a full-blown conspiracy inward which the CIA intended to foster trafficking together with addiction internationally, including Europe together with the United States.

Rather, the CIA’s short-term destination of using narcotics traffickers equally self-sustaining paramilitary forces during the mutual frigidness state of war blinded the way from foreseeing the long-term increase inward the region’s drug merchandise afterward the U.S. authorities no longer needed its clients’ services. In essence, the CIA, narrowly focused on anticommunism, deemed its clients’ expanded drug trafficking abilities equally entirely “fallout” from overriding mutual frigidness state of war concerns.

For instance, when narcotics produced yesteryear CIA allies supplied U.S. addicts—as inward the instance of U.S. soldiers inward Vietnam using heroin trafficked yesteryear South Vietnamese, Laotian, together with Thai officials—the CIA, jump yesteryear law to provide intelligence on drug trafficking, illegally prevented investigations of Southeast Asian officials. Damning facts such equally these conduct hold lent the air of conspiracy to the CIA’s human relationship to the international drug trade.

Another drug conspiracy leveled at the U.S. authorities involved the Nixon administration’s drug policy together with the White House’s reorganization of federal drug enforcement agencies. In the early on 1970s President Nixon launched his “war on drugs” inward response to a burgeoning heroin epidemic inward the United States.

Like Harry J. Anslinger, Nixon cast blame on unusual nations for America’s addiction problem. Nixon favored the utilisation of federal drug command agencies equally the response to the country’s supposedly growing rates of drug abuse.

Part of Nixon’s solution entailed the creation of the Office of National Narcotics Intelligence (ONNI), Office for Drug Abuse together with Law Enforcement (ODALE), together with Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which replaced the Bureau of Narcotics together with Dangerous Drugs (BNDD), the FBN’s successor agency. The executive branch oversaw these agencies together with critics defendant the president of using them for purposes non related to drug control.

Specifically, skeptics argued that Nixon manufactured a drug scare that distracted the U.S. populace together with Congress together with allowed the direction to practise White House– controlled federal agencies that were used for surveillance together with harassment of political enemies, non apprehending drug dealers.

Critics charged ODALE together with ONNI equally beingness petty to a greater extent than than a White House soul constabulary force. ODALE, housed inward the Justice Department, was authorized to comport no-knock search warrants together with warrantless raids, equally good equally to utilisation court-ordered wiretaps. Such an way had the capacity to human activeness higher upwards the law together with did on occasions. Indeed, telephone substitution figures inward the Watergate scandal—G. Gordon Liddy, Egil Krogh, E. Howard Hunt, together with Lucein Conein— were all involved inward federal drug command agencies.

Liddy developed the creation of ODALE. Conein, a CIA agent, evidently developed a special assassination force—ostensibly aimed at major drug traffickers—within the DEA afterward that organization’s creation inward mid-1973. Krogh served equally deputy assistant for the president for law enforcement together with helped gear upwards the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP), which established federal methadone clinics.

Interestingly, the federal methadone clinics—aimed at helping heroin addicts— drew criticism from African Americans equally a ploy to maintain inner-city populations addicted to difficult drugs. In the end, the Plumbers, drawn from the Nixon administration’s drug command apparatus, together with the resulting Watergate scandal derailed Nixon’s cry for for unchecked executive power.

Marijuana

Like the opiates, conspiracy theories formed to a greater extent than or less marijuana, a drug outlawed inward 1937 yesteryear the Marijuana Tax Act. Similar to the Chinese immigrants’ negative association amongst opium smoking, marijuana was linked to some other stereotyped immigrant group, Mexicans.

During the showtime few decades of the 1900s local together with province restrictions on marijuana, especially inward the West together with Southwest, were established equally the drug was purported to get smokers to commit crimes. Tales of stoned Mexicans who craved violence together with were immune to hurting were common. Throughout the showtime one-half of the 1930s Anslinger resisted calls for federal legislation banning marijuana, believing that the states could best command the matter.

But yesteryear 1936 Anslinger reversed course of report together with embarked on a effort inward which he showtime stated that he had underestimated the marijuana threat together with and therefore proceeded to describe the weed equally worse than heroin, together with the harbinger of decease together with discord. Drug policy scholars conduct hold attributed Anslinger’s turnaround to his sharp concern for bureaucratic survival—he used the marijuana number to justify his together with the FBN’s existence.

According to this line of thinking, Anslinger did non practise a marijuana scare; he joined ane already inward progress together with bolstered it to best of his might amongst lurid testimony at congressional hearings together with inward paper together with magazine articles. Anslinger’s article “Marijuana: Assassin of Youth,” which appeared inward the July 1937 edition of American Magazine, was a prime number illustration of FBN antimarijuana propaganda.

The article, equally did well-nigh of Anslinger’s marijuana horror stories together with other sensationalized accounts similar the Hollywood celluloid Reefer Madness, involved American youths together with linked the drug amongst serious crimes (such equally murder, rape, together with mutilation), insanity, promiscuity, together with full general immorality.

For Anslinger, the consequences of inhaling the killer weed ranged from patricide together with fratricide—as the commissioner oftentimes recounted inward the instance of a Florida youth—to the possibility that a user would plow into a “philosopher, a joyous reveler inward a musical heaven,” a contestation that linked marijuana together with jazz music (Anslinger 1937, 150). The outcome of all the scare tactics together with misinformation was the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, which initially curtailed hemp production, but ultimately served equally the footing for criminalizing marijuana users.

Countering Anslinger’s persuasion of marijuana equally a generator of offense together with decease is the conspiracy theory best articulated yesteryear Jack Herer inward Hemp together with the Marijuana Conspiracy: The Emperor Wears No Clothes. According to Herer, bureaucratic survival was non at the pump of Anslinger’s antimarijuana campaign. Rather, Anslinger’s role inward demonizing marijuana stemmed from his participation inward a concerted essay yesteryear powerful economical interests to postage out contest from the hemp industry.

Specifically, Anslinger, the E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (DuPont), work organisation magnate Andrew Mellon, together with the media giant William Randolph Hearst worked paw inward paw to forestall a growing hemp manufacture from offering cellulosebased products, such equally paper (and potentially textiles together with plastics), from competing amongst DuPont’s products. By the 1930s DuPont had developed patents for producing paper from woods pulp together with likewise had plans to brand plastics from fossil oil products.

Andrew W. Mellon, secretarial assistant of the treasury together with possessor of the Mellon Bank of Pittsburgh, which was ane of entirely 2 banks DuPont dealt with, appointed his time to come son-in-law to caput upwards the newly created FBN inward Dec 1930. Anslinger’s solar daytime of the month to the FBN, housed inward the Treasury Department, tied him to Mellon’s together with DuPont’s fiscal interests, which included stunting a hemp manufacture that had grown over the 1920s together with 1930s.

The Hearst paper syndicate, the nation’s largest, was likewise tied economically to the woodpaper industry. Moreover, Hearst, known for his disdain of jazz music, Mexicans, together with African Americans, readily published antimarijuana tracts that seat his newspapers inward line amongst the federal government.

Ultimately, all of these actors constituted a conspiracy orchestrated to brand hemp illegal. According to this theory, the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, far from outlawing a supposedly murderous drug, was inward fact legislation designed to farther DuPont’s fiscal fortune.

Warsaw Pact

Warsaw Pact logo

Warsaw Pact is the informal title given to the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO), a group of Eastern European nations and the Soviet Union pledged to mutual assistance and defense. In 1955 the member nations signed the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance.

The Warsaw Pact’s objectives from its inception to its demise in 1991 changed, but throughout that time, the organization served as the means by which the Soviet Union bound its Eastern European client states together militarily.

The Warsaw Pact agreement replaced a series of bilateral treaties of defense and friendship between the Soviet Union and these nations. Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania joined with the Soviet Union.


The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) had been in existence since 1949, but NATO announced in May 1955 that it would include West Germany as a member; this prompted the formation of the Warsaw Pact. Thus only 10 years after the end of World War II, the Soviet Union not only was engaged in a cold war with the West but also faced a resurgent Germany.

It was not only an external threat that moved the Soviets to change their agreements with these nations, but there was the matter of internal stability as well. Following World War II, there had been significant armed resistance to the Soviets, who had entered these nations while advancing against the retreating German armies.

Polish anti-Soviet partisans opposed the Soviets until well into the late 1940s. Demonstrations against the Soviets caused real concern about the stability of the communist elites running these countries.

By bringing in Soviet troops to occupy these countries as part of Warsaw Pact activities, the Soviet Union allowed itself to more easily defend any attacks that might come from the West and, at the same time, to keep these friendly regimes stable. East Germany joined in 1956. Yugoslavia did not join at any time.

The treaty clearly stated that national sovereignty would be respected and that all of the signatories were independent. The treaty was to last for 20 years, with an automatic 10-year extension.

Each member nation could unilaterally leave the organization; the reality proved to be very different. In 1956 the Hungarian government of Imre Nagy declared that it would no longer be allied with the Soviet Union but would become a neutral. Part of this neutrality process would be its withdrawal from the pact.

Regardless of any promises, the Soviet Union acted quickly to defeat this rebellion. Using the request of some Hungarian Communist Party members as an invitation to act, Soviet infantry and armor invaded the country and after a two-week struggle replaced Imre Nagy’s government with a more compliant government under János Kádár. Although the Soviets cited the danger of breaking up the alliance to justify the invasion, it was only Soviet troops that took part in the operation.

In the early days of the Warsaw Pact, the nature of the alliance was somewhat vague. Each of the member nations, while influenced by the Soviet Union, still had a certain amount of independence in its tactical doctrine and did not coordinate its training with either the Soviet Union or other members. That situation would change in the coming years.

From 1961 on, combined exercises were conducted, and Soviet-manufactured weapons and equipment were purchased by the member nations. High-ranking Soviet officers were assigned to the defense ministries of Warsaw Pact members to ensure a uniformity of training and to keep the national militaries subservient to and a part of the armed forces of the Soviet Union.

Although the Warsaw Pact gained cohesion in terms of command and control, there were movements that served to weaken it. In 1962 there was another defection from the Warsaw Pact, this time a successful one. In this case it involved Albania strengthening its ties to China and distancing itself from the Soviet Union.

Because Albania did not border on any other Warsaw Pact member, the Soviet Union had no choice but to accept this action. The Soviets thus lost access to a Mediterranean port. Albania’s formal defection in 1968 merely ratified what already existed.

Independent Streaks

Another unhappy member of the alliance was Romania. This country managed to conduct a very successful balancing act in staying within the alliance, exercising a surprising degree of independence, and not paying a very high price for its actions. Romania’s independent streak began as early as 1958, when it stated that Soviet troops were not welcome on its territory, continuing through 1968, when it would not participate in the invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Czechoslovakia. A child watches as Warsaw Pact tanks invade his country, August 1968

Romania’s position was that the pact existed only for self-defense and not to maintain communist elites in the separate nations. In part because Romania was loyal in other ways and because it was not close to the potential front with Germany, this independent streak went unpunished.

Not every nation was so fortunate. In late 1967 a reform movement within the Czechoslovak Communist Party caused a major change in leadership. These events were closely monitored by the Soviet leadership. After the attempted defection by Hungary 10 years before, Albania’s departure, and Romania’s distancing itself, the Soviets were concerned that any reform or liberalization might weaken their control over this state.

The continued freedom of the press and freedom of expression forced the Soviets to act. On the night of August 20–21, Soviet troops, assisted by forces from Hungary, East Germany, Bulgaria, and Poland, invaded.

Combined Warsaw Pact exercises had been taking place that summer, and the Warsaw Pact nations had been able to stage their invasion and subsequently move quickly into the country. The Czechoslovak government was changed, and there was no more discussion of changing Czechoslovakia’s role in the Warsaw Pact.

Thirteen years later, the Warsaw Pact’s invasion of Czechoslovakia influenced another nation. This time it was Poland, where vigorous opposition appeared in the form of the labor union Solidarity. By the end of 1981, after almost two years of liberalization, the Communist government of Poland imposed martial law.

Union leaders were imprisoned, the union was declared illegal, and Polish soldiers took over many of the government’s functions. The rationale for this move was that the imposition of martial law by Polish authorities would eliminate the possibility of a repetition of the events of 1968.

Soviet Leadership

As the 1980s wore on, there were significant changes in Soviet leadership. Leonid Brezhnev, who had ordered the invasion of Czechoslovakia and threatened the same for Poland, died in 1982. He was succeeded by Yuri Andropov, who had, earlier in his career, restored order to Hungary after its unsuccessful rebellion in 1956. Andropov, died in 1984 and was for a few months succeeded by Konstantin Chernenko. With the accession of Mikhail Gorbachev to power in 1985, relationships between the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact slowly changed.

That year the Warsaw Pact came up for renewal, and the members agreed to another 20-year term to be followed by a 10-year extension, as had been done 30 years before. It became recognized that there would be no more interventions such as the ones that had taken place in Czechoslovakia and had been threatened in Poland.

The Warsaw Pact still, however, existed as a force with over 6,300,000 soldiers—20 percent of whom were non-Soviet. The resolution of the Euromissile crisis and changing politics within the Soviet Union were leading to other changes.

At the end of 1988 Gorbachev announced that there would be troop withdrawals from East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. The power elites did not look forward to this, as their position within their own countries had been strengthened against dissidents and other opposition by the presence of the Soviet army.

Romanian Revolution 1989 image - Warsaw Pact

Early in 1989 the Hungarian government removed its barbed wire barriers along its border with Austria, and Solidarity scored well in a partially free election. Before the year was out, the regimes had changed in Bulgaria, Romania, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia. Although there were some attempts to keep the Warsaw Pact alive as a political organization, the Warsaw Pact ended in 1991.

Eight years later three former members of the Warsaw Pact—Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary—joined NATO. In 2004 former members Bulgaria, Romania, and Slovakia joined, as did three former republics of the Soviet Union—Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.

The Warsaw Pact never functioned as smoothly as desired. There was a great deal of distrust between the Soviet Union and the member states and among the member states themselves. Several of these countries had not enjoyed good relations before World War II and still harbored ill feelings toward each other.

Also, although the Soviet Union, could compel these nations to buy Soviet equipment and essentially to become part of the Soviet army, they could not force complete obedience in all matters. Despite Soviet demands that pact members buy substantial amounts of military equipment, many of the nations refused to do so.

The purchase of military equipment presented another difficulty. Arms purchases would bring in cash desired by the Soviet Union, and it wanted these nations to field equipment compatible with Soviet issue. On the other hand, the Soviets did not want other pact members to have armies, air forces, or navies that could present obstacles to the Soviet Union.

Although the Warsaw Pact sent advisers and provided military aid to Soviet clients, there never was a conflict between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. To predict that pact forces would have fought unreservedly to protect the Soviet Union and socialism is an unrealistic assumption.

Sheikh Hasina Wajed

Sheikh Hasina Wajed

Sheikh Hasina Wajed is the president and head of the Bangladesh Awami League. She is the daughter of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the popular Bangladeshi leader who played a leading role in the founding of Bangladesh. Sheikh Hasina Wajed was one of only two members of the Mujib family to survive a bloody August 15, 1975, military coup.

Sheikh Hasina Wajed was born on September 28, 1947, in the city of Tungipara in the Gopalganj district of Bangladesh. She earned her B.A. from Dhaka University in 1973. During her school days, she became active in politics, becoming the chief of the Student Union at the Government Intermediate College for Women in 1966. She and other members of her family were imprisoned several times by Pakistan’s military government leading up to the Bangladesh liberation struggle in 1971.

After the assassination of Mujibur Rahman in 1975, Wajed was forced by the military government of General Ziaur Rahman to live in exile until 1981. In 1981 she became the president of the Bangladesh Awami League.


With an absolute majority secured by her Awami League in the 1996 election, Wajed became the prime minister of Bangladesh on June 23. She took many measures to alleviate rural poverty, enhance per capita income, create job opportunities, and increase agricultural production. She also introduced new welfare schemes, innovative housing programs in rural areas that reversed the ekspresi dominan of migration from rural to urban areas.

She was the leader of the opposition in the Bangladeshi parliament from 1986 to 1987, 1991 to 1993, and 2001 forward. Under her stewardship, the Awami League boycotted parliament until June 2004, accusing the government of Khaleda Zia of corruption and nepotism.

Wajed is a fierce, enigmatic leader who believes in political parties based in the needs of the masses and in mobilizing the party cadre to win elections. Coming from a political family and with a father who was a highly revered personality in Bangladesh politics, Wajed is a political force to be reckoned with and is likely to play a prominent role in Bangladeshi politics for the foreseeable future. She is also an author of repute.

The Dorr War

Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 pop armed uprising inwards Providence, Rhode Island, inwards 1841, the Dorr War sought to extend the restricted suffrage of the province constitution. Although some conspiracy-minded historians cause got argued that Tammany Hall, the New York Democratic Club, was responsible for the Dorr War or manipulated unrest over suffrage inwards Rhode Island to make partisan advantage, it appears that Tammany did non come inwards the pic until piece of cake inwards the dispute in addition to gained real piffling from it.

Reformers had protested for years near the correct to vote beingness express to belongings owners. By 1840 a bulk of adult males no longer owned existent estate inwards Rhode Island, simply many did possess a pregnant total of personal property.

Suffrage requirements were contained inwards the violet charter granted past times King Charles II inwards 1663, which became Rhode Island’s constitution inwards 1776. The charter too apportioned representation on the distribution of population equally it was inwards 1663, then that equally people moved from rural areas to the cities, urban dwellers became vastly underrepresented.


In 1811 the Rhode Island Senate amongst a Republican bulk passed a mouth to extend the suffrage, simply the Federalists inwards the House defeated it. Popular agitation began amongst a volume coming together inwards Providence inwards 1820, in addition to the legislature responded past times putting the suffrage inquiry to a vote of the people.

But amongst solely belongings owners voting, it lost 1,600 to 1,900. In 1825, when a convention to rewrite the province constitution considered extending the suffrage, solely 3 delegates voted for it. Then, qualified landowners voted against ratifying the proposal, which contained a reapportionment.

Four years later, 2,000 persons appealed to the legislature to extend the suffrage, simply the House reported that landholders were “the solely audio part of the community.” They argued that if the landless did non similar it, they should instruct existent belongings or motion elsewhere. In 1832 to a greater extent than petitions met the same fate.

Growing dissatisfaction manifested itself inwards the formation of the Constitutional Party at a coming together of representatives from x communities on 22 Feb 1834 inwards Providence. The side past times side calendar month twenty-nine-year-old attorney Thomas Wilson Dorr, Harvard flat of 1823, addressed some other coming together of delegates from twelve towns. When solely 700 persons voted for its candidates inwards 1837, the political party disbanded.

Then, inwards the tumble of 1840, Dr. J. A. Brown organized an anti-Whig grouping called the Rhode Island Suffrage Association, which spread to every town inwards the state. It published a newspaper called the New Age, held volume meetings characterized past times lively speeches, wore badges, waved banners, in addition to paraded amongst a band.

When the legislature rebuffed the people’s petitions, the association called for a People’s Day on 17 Apr 1840. Three one thousand attended the demonstration inwards Providence in addition to adjourned to Newport the side past times side day, where delegates appointed a commission to telephone telephone a People’s Constitutional Convention, in addition to paraded through town, several carrying guns.

Events moved rapidly. On 28 August 1841, 7,512 people voted for delegates to the People’s Convention, which drafted a constitution on 4 October. They revised it on sixteen Nov in addition to called for its ratification. From 27–29 December, 13,944 people voted for, 52 against. The People’s candidate for governor was the same dedicated in addition to obstinate Thomas Dorr, who had addressed the Constitutional Party coming together inwards 1834.

He was the boy of an aristocratic Woonsocket manufacturer, a respected fellow member of the community, a onetime Federalist, an anti-Jackson Whig, a pro–Van Buren Democrat, president of the Providence School Committee, treasurer of the Rhode Island Historical Society, in addition to illustration inwards the province legislature. On xviii Apr 1842, 6,359 people voted for him to atomic number 82 a novel People’s government.

But the charter authorities were non idle. They opposed what they considered a usurpation of ascendency in addition to provided severe penalties for those who ran for part or voted inwards the People’s election. To forestall his beingness arrested, Dorr called for an armed escort on inauguration day, 3 May. According to the Providence Daily Journal, 3,000 people marched inwards the maiden parade, roughly 850 nether arms. The side past times side twenty-four hours the charter authorities declared Rhode Island inwards a province of insurrection.

On 17 May Dorr in addition to 70 armed volunteers forced a six-man, sword-armed guard to give upwards the Armory of the United Train of Artillery in addition to captured 2 six-pound cannons. By 1:00 A.M. the side past times side twenty-four hours Dorr’s troops dwindled to 250 men. They approached the Providence Arsenal inwards a fog nether a flag of truce, in addition to Dorr demanded the Arsenal surrender.

From his well-fortified seat amongst an overwhelming forcefulness Colonel Blodgett refused, simply held his fire. Dorr lit the fuses on his cannon. There was a flash of pulverisation inwards the pan, simply no written report in addition to Dorr in addition to his troops slipped away inwards the early on morning time fog. The side past times side twenty-four hours he escaped to Connecticut. He tried to flora his authorities i time to a greater extent than in addition to met the same opposition.

The solely fatality inwards Dorr’s War occurred on 27 June. In Chepachet, a grouping of brick-throwing Dorr sympathizers from Massachusetts assailed the Kentish Guard at the Pawtucket Bridge. When the crowd failed to disperse, the Guard volleyed over their heads. The crowd continued to throw bricks in addition to the Guard fired into the crowd, killing i man.

On 21 June 1842, the province legislature called a constitutional convention amongst delegates apportioned on the reason of the 1840 census. The convention drafted articles extending the suffrage in addition to redistricting the legislature, in addition to the people ratified the novel document, ending the longtime struggle.

Both sides appealed to the national authorities for assistance, simply all 3 branches demurred. President John Tyler refused to post troops, the Senate tabled a resolution requiring the president to inform Congress of his actions, in addition to Chief Justice Roger Taney, speaking for the Supreme Court inwards an 8–1 determination involving a dispute over which authorities was the proper authority, wrote:

“No one, nosotros believe, has always doubted the proposition, that, according to the institutions of this country, the sovereignty inwards every State resides inwards the people of the State, in addition to that they may alter in addition to alter their shape of authorities at their ain pleasure.

But whether they cause got changed it or non past times abolishing an old government, in addition to establishing a novel i inwards its place, is a inquiry to hold upwards settled past times the political power. And when that ability has decided, the courts are outpouring to accept uncovering of its decision, in addition to to follow it” (Luther v. Borden).

When Dorr returned to Providence inwards Oct 1843, after beingness celebrated past times Tammany Hall inwards New York, the authorities arrested him at the City Hotel, tried him earlier the province Supreme Court, in addition to convicted in addition to sentenced him to life inwards prison. The legislature released him on 27 June 1845, restored his civil rights inwards May 1851, in addition to pardoned him inwards Jan 1854. He died a twelvemonth after at historic current forty-nine.

B.J. Vorster

B.J. Vorster

Balthazar Johannes (John) Vorster was South African prime minister from 1966 to 1978. He is perhaps best known for having legislated into power some of apartheid’s most discriminatory and racial policies. Born on December 13, 1915, in Uitenhage, Eastern Cape, John Vorster was the 13th child of a wealthy sheep farmer.

After receiving his primary and secondary education in the Eastern Cape, he went on to receive his bachelor of law degree from Stellenbosch University and set up a law practice in Port Elizabeth in the late 1930s. With the onset of World War II, he ardently opposed South Africa’s involvement in support of the Allies by becoming a member of the pro-Nazi Ossewa-Brandwag. His support of the Nazi regime under Adolf Hitler landed Vorster in jail during much of World War II.

However, this did little to deter his radical ideology, and he maintained that the dictatorial regime in Germany at the time was a more productive and suitable model for South African governance than the parliamentary system already in place. When Vorster was released from jail in 1944, his right-wing political and social views led him to join the growing South African National Party.


Vorster worked his way up the ranks of the party cadre, and in 1953 he was elected to parliament in Cape Town as a National Party representative. After one session in parliament he was appointed deputy minister of education in 1958; he rigidly enforced apartheid’s Bantu education policies.

Under Prime Minister Verwoerd he became minister of justice in 1961. During this time, the government sent South African Defense Force soldiers to support Ian Smith’s white regime in Rhodesia, with the popular support of most of white South Africa.

Vorster succeeded Prime Minister Verwoerd unopposed after Verwoerd was assassinated in 1966. His brief and uneventful time as a cabinet minister under Verwoerd meant that he knew little about the workings of departments other than his own.

He knew little about the African population and the inner workings of the huge departments that governed their lives. However, during the year he came to succeed Verwoerd, Vorster combined the Justice portfolio with that of Police and Prisons, strengthening the power of the department and the South African Police Service.

Although Vorster continued with the basic tenets of separate development policies, he alienated extremist factions of the National Party early in his prime ministership by pursuing diplomatic relations with African countries and by agreeing to let black African diplomats live in white areas. However, Vorster’s tenure as prime minister was marked mainly by an increase in racial discrimination and violence in all of South Africa, including an increase in detention without trial.

Although Vorster’s government is mainly known for streamlining and harshly enforcing apartheid’s policies, his foreign policy initiatives are generally viewed as moderate and conciliatory.

He began by unofficially supporting Rhodesia, which at the time was struggling to gain independence from British rule under prime minister Ian Smith. Although publicly he espoused the white public opinion in South Africa, he did not wish to alienate potential political allies such as the United States by extending diplomatic recognition to Rhodesia.

He exerted his pressure as a hegemon in the region by persuading Smith to negotiate with Mozambique during the regional civil war that was ongoing in southern Africa. Vorster began cutting off vital supplies to Smith and even went so far as to refuse calls made by the Rhodesian prime minister. International pressure continued to squeeze South Africa for the remainder of apartheid.

Vorster, in an attempt to regain South African public approval, invaded Angola in the 1970s in order to protect South-West Africa (present-day Namibia) against rebel attempts by Angola to invade the country for diamonds. Continuing his conciliatory initiatives in September 1974, Vorster announced in Cape Town his famous Détente with Africa policy. Despite regional efforts in Angola at the time, Vorster promised cooperation with the leaders of neighboring black African nations.

The negotiations over Rhodesia and attempts to make peace with black Africa were predicated on the hopes that such maneuvers would postpone Vorster’s day of reckoning in South Africa. His hope was that emerging Zimbabwean and Mozambican states would feel indebted to South Africa for its role in liberating these countries.

The 1970s were a turbulent time for Vorster. He harshly suppressed the Soweto uprising in 1976, which would draw more international pressure in the form of economic and social sanctions. He granted independence to the Transkei in 1976 and Bophuthatswana in 1977 in accordance with apartheid’s separate development policies, although economic development within them would stagnate.

He maintained the view that Africans could exercise political rights only in their homelands regardless of where they actually lived. On September 12, 1977, Steve Biko, the Black Consciousness leader, died in horrifying circumstances while in police custody. Vorster’s response was personally to ban 18 organizations. This step helped him to an overwhelming victory in the general election of November 1977.

However, Vorster did take the first, unconscious steps toward a more equal South Africa. Vorster’s minister of sport and recreation, Dr. Piet Koornhof, managed to secure some limited desegregation of sport by invoking the fiction of multinationalism: Each national group had to play sport separately, but they might play against each other in multinational events.

Similarly higher-class hotels and restaurants might acquire multinational status and thereby admit people of all races. An elaborate system of permits for mixed gatherings, events, and venues was initiated. Vorster saw many apartheid policies as unnecessary and began the slow process of weeding them out.

In the late 1970s Vorster was implicated in what became known as Muldergate (so named after Dr. Connie Mulder, the information cabinet minister at the center of the scandal). Although Vorster was certainly a victim of the scandal, in a sense the scandal arose from circumstances that he himself had perpetrated.

Vorster was implicated in the use of a slush fund to buy the loyalty of The Citizen, the only major English-language newspaper favorable to the National Party. The official investigation concluded that Vorster, in conjunction with the head of the South African Police Services, General H. J. van den Bergh, had not only conspired to manipulate The Citizen but also to buy the U.S.-based Washington Star.

It was discovered that in 1973 Vorster had agreed to Mulder’s plan to shift about 64 million rands from the defense budget for a series of propaganda campaigns. In what became a National Party embarrassment, a commission of inquiry finally concluded in 1979 that Vorster had been aware of the fund and had tolerated it. After the scandal, Vorster retired from the position of prime minister in 1978. Vorster died in Cape Town in 1983.

Vo Nguyen Giap

Vo Nguyen Giap

In the history of communist Vietnam, Giap is second only to Ho Chi Minh in the impact he had. Ho named Giap commander in chief of the Vietminh forces fighting the French at the end of World War II.

Giap orchestrated the defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1953 and was named minister of defense of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Giap was also the chief military strategist against the U.S. led Vietnam War.

Giap was born in central Annam, just north of the 17th parallel, on August 25, 1911, to Nguyen Thi Kien and Vo Quang Nghiem. His early life was spent in one of the poorest sections of Vietnam.


However, Giap’s father was a member of the tiny middle class of his region, a rice farmer who tilled his own land and rented another small portion, in addition to being a practitioner of traditional Asian medicine.

From age five until eight, he attended school in An Xa. The school was supervised by the French but taught by Vietnamese. In 1923 he received a certificate for finishing elementary studies, which was not very common. The following year he took the entrance examination to qualify for additional education at Hue but failed.

Vo Nguyen Giap in Time Magazine

He studied diligently and passed the exam in 1925. He attended school at the Quoc Hoc, which was a known seedbed of revolution; his leadership abilities and intelligence helped him excel as a student.

Giap then became a history teacher, a profession he retained throughout the 1930s. At the same time, he was active in various revolutionary movements. He joined the Communist Party in 1934, and assisted in founding the Democratic Front in 1936.

He was a devoted scholar of military tactics and studied Napoleon and the ancient Chinese military tactician Sunzi extensively. The French outlawed communism in 1939, so Giap, along with Ho Chi Minh, fled to China, where he studied guerrilla warfare.

From 1939 until around 1947 Giap was busy developing and directing the military plan that defeated the French and eventually caused the United States to abandon its efforts in Vietnam. It was a multifaceted plan that included gathering popular support for his efforts and mobilizing the people to join the communist cause.

Old Vo Nguyen Giap (2008)

Giap’s military strategies caused millions of people to lose their lives, including millions of Vietnamese, both North and South, and over 58,000 Americans. Many American soldiers were impressed with the diligence of the Vietnamese, the skill of the North Vietnamese army, and their discipline. Much of this was due to the leadership of Giap.

When the Socialist Republic of Vietnam was established in 1975, when North Vietnam conquered the south and united the nation, Giap served as deputy prime minister and minister of defense. After his retirement, he wrote several books. In 1992, he was awarded the Golden Star Award, Vietnam’s highest decorative honor.

Vietnam War

Vietnam War

The Vietnam War was America’s longest war. In total, the conflict in Vietnam lasted from 1946 to 1975. The official dates of U.S. involvement were 1964–73. The Vietnam War was extremely costly and destructive and had a profound effect on both the soldiers who fought it and the civilians who lived through it. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution was signed by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 and gave him the power to wage war in Vietnam.

Throughout the 1940s and into the 1950s, the Vietminh under Ho Chi Minh were fighting the French colonial presence in Vietnam. By 1954 the United States was paying 80 percent of the cost of France’s war against the Vietminh. In July 1954 the French and the Vietminh signed an armistice in Geneva, which divided Vietnam at the 17th parallel.

Ho Chi Minh controlled the north, and Vietnam-wide elections were to be held in 1956. The United States did not sign the agreement, and plans were put in place to stop Ho Chi Minh’s plans to conquer all of Vietnam. President Dwight Eisenhower was afraid that if Vietnam fell to communism, the rest of Southeast Asia would follow.


Not wanting Vietnam to be under the control of a communist leader, the United States pushed aside the French puppet leader and replaced him with Ngo Dinh Diem, a Vietnamese nationalist. Many were confident that Diem could rally Vietnam against communism. The United States increased aid to South Vietnam, and the first U.S. advisers arrived there in early 1955. These decisions laid the groundwork for the Vietnam War.

Ho Chi Minh was frustrated that Vietnam was not yet independent and unified, so in 1957 the Vietminh in South Vietnam began to revolt against the Diem regime. In May 1959 communist North Vietnam came to the aid of the revolutionaries in the south. As a result, the United States increased its aid to South Vietnam.

In South Vietnam conditions deteriorated rapidly. Diem’s regime never gained popular support. In 1960 anti-Diem communists and Buddhists created the National Liberation Front, with the Vietcong as its military wing, and began operations against Diem’s forces.

A young soldier being sent to vietnam

The United States had pledged in the 1954 South East Asia Treaty Organization pact to defend South Vietnam against external aggression, and President John F. Kennedy lived up to that obligation.

To Kennedy and other politicians, Vietnam was another cold war battlefield. Signs of weakness would lead the Soviet Union to believe that the United States was weak and vulnerable. As such, South Vietnam also became a testing facility for counter-insurgency units.

The U.S. Green Berets advised the South Vietnamese army, and civilians provided medical and technical aid and economic and political reforms, all in an effort to "win the hearts and minds" of the Vietnamese.

There was a general consensus in Kennedy’s administration about the consequences of losing Vietnam to communism; there were others who feared the worst. Undersecretary of State George Ball told Kennedy that within five years there would be 300,000 U.S. soldiers in Vietnam. However, Ball was incorrect: within five years nearly 400,000 soldiers were in Vietnam.

Female soldier, Vietnam war

Even with his advisers calling for escalation, Kennedy proceeded cautiously. By the middle of 1962 he had increased the number of military advisers from 700 to 12,000. He added another 5,000 in 1963.

As the number of casualties increased, the prospects of withdrawing became increasingly difficult. In the face of so many problems, Kennedy gave the order to overthrow Diem. On November 1, South Vietnamese military officials, with the assistance of the U.S. embassy in Saigon, arrested Diem and his brother.

While in custody, both were assassinated. However, the plan backfired. A number of inexperienced military officers took command in South Vietnam with little support and were unable to govern effectively. The country sank deeper into trouble and the role of the United States increased.

After President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, the issue of Vietnam fell to President Lyndon B. Johnson; Johnson was deeply troubled over Vietnam and had been for some time. During the rest of the months leading up to the November 1964 election, Johnson tried all he could to keep the issue of Vietnam in the background, fearing it would hurt his chances of being elected.

In many of his conversations with Robert McNamara, secretary of defense, Johnson discussed doing all he could to keep the public thinking that he had made no simpulan decisions on Vietnam.

Some advisers were trying to give Johnson suggestions for getting out of Vietnam and still saving face; meanwhile, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were advising him that preventing the loss of South Vietnam was of overriding importance to the United States.

Treating the wounded soldier

Robert McNamara visited Saigon. He reported to Johnson that conditions had worsened there since General Khanh took over power in January 1964. Many officials there favored increased pressure on North Vietnam, including air strikes. McNamara, aware of Johnson’s wish to be ambiguous to the public regarding his stance, offered to take a lot of the heat.

Johnson, knowing the conditions in Vietnam, understood that in order to achieve the ambitious conditions set out in McNamara’s policy statement, an escalation of military power in the country would have to be undertaken.

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed in Congress on August 7, 1964. It provided the legal authority for Johnson to escalate the Vietnam War. On August 2 North Vietnamese gunboats had attacked the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin. On August 4 the Maddox and another vessel, the USS Turner Joy, reported being under attack.

Many doubts exist about whether or not the second attack actually took place, but the Johnson administration used it as a pretext for retaliation. Johnson ordered the first U.S. air strikes against North Vietnam. The resolution was passed 88-2.

Johnson won the 1964 presidential election by a landslide. In addition to his domestic agenda, the Great Society, Vietnam was the largest issue he dealt with. Still relying on trusted advisers like Richard Russell, even though he would not take his advice, Johnson had countless discussions about Vietnam.

Johnson’s rationalization was what he considered a treaty commitment inherited from Eisenhower and Kennedy. No matter what Johnson said to him, Russell stuck to his conviction that Vietnam was not the place to invest U.S. blood and treasure. Johnson told Everett Dirksen, Senate minority leader, that communist propaganda, his advice from Eisenhower, and the domino theory informed his policies with regard to Vietnam.

Major Escalation

US Air Force First Lieutenant being held captive by a young North Vietnamese girl,
Vietnam War, 1967

After July 1965 the war escalated into a major international conflict. The North Vietnamese army numbered in the thousands, and they supported an estimated National Liberation Front force of 80,000. From 6,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam in July 1965, the number increased to over 536,000 by 1968, with an additional 800,000 South Vietnamese troops.

Both sides played to their own strengths. The United States had great wealth, modern weapons, and a highly trained military force under the command of General William Westmoreland. Using bombing raids and search-and-destroy missions, it sought to force the opponent to surrender.

The National Liberation Front and the North Vietnamese army, under the exceptional direction of Vo Nguyen Giap, used a different strategy altogether. They were lightly armed and knew the area. They relied on the guerrilla warfare tactics of stealth and mobility. Giap wanted to wear down the United States and its allies by harassment missions.

Between 1965 and 1967 the United States did untold amounts of damage to Vietnam. Bombing increased from 63,000 tons in 1965 to over 226,000 tons in 1967. The U.S. military strategy failed to produce clear results. The war dragged on, and opposition to the conflict in the United States intensified.

Countless protests took place in cities and on college campuses. Troops who returned home were often treated poorly, quite the opposite of the heroes’ welcome experienced by returning veterans of World War II.

The Tet Offensive of 1968 brought a new phase of the war. In late 1967 the North Vietnamese launched operations in remote areas to draw U.S. forces away from cities. On January 31, 1968, the National Liberation Front launched massive attacks on the unsecured urban areas.

F-4 bomb run Vietnam....help is on the way.

They led strikes on 36 provincial capitals, 5 major cities in the south, and 64 district capitals. They also attacked the U.S. embassy in Saigon and captured Hue for a period. Although the Tet Offensive failed overall, it had a profound psychological effect on the people of the United States.

Protests increased, and murmurs that the war was unwinnable became much more audible. As a result of developments in Vietnam and widespread unrest across the country, Lyndon Johnson announced that he would not seek reelection in 1968.

After the Tet Offensive, ensuing peace talks failed to produce any agreement. The dilema of Vietnam fell to the fourth U.S. president involved in the Vietnam conflict, Richard Nixon.

In 1969 he expanded the war into neighboring Cambodia, a move that he kept from the press, further increasing the gap in the people’s trust in the government when he went public about the decision in 1970. The domestic backlash led to a new wave of protests, during which four students died at Kent State University in Ohio, and two more at Jackson State University in Mississippi.

Photo by Art Greenspon/AP - Vietnam War. April 1968

Nixon’s involvement in Vietnam was marked by increased domestic opposition. After the Cambodian affair, Congress repealed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. The trial of Lieutenant William Calley, commander of a unit that murdered 500 South Vietnamese civilians at My Lai, raised fundamental susila questions about the war.

Finally, the Pentagon Papers were published in 1971, which deepened public distrust in the government. Polls showed that more than 70 percent of Americans felt that the United States had erred when it sent troops into Vietnam. During 1972–73 the U.S. phase of the war ended.

A peace agreement was signed in Paris on January 27, 1973. It allowed for the extraction of U.S. military forces from Vietnam and the return of U.S. prisoners of war but did not address the fundamental issues over which the war had been fought.

North Vietnam was allowed to leave 150,000 troops in the south, and the future of South Vietnam was not directly and clearly spelled out. Fighting broke out between the north and the south, and the U.S. Congress drastically cut military and economic aid to South Vietnam.

When Richard Nixon resigned because of the Watergate scandal, the Vietnam War issue was passed to its fifth president, Gerald Ford. Congress rejected his request for $722 million in aid for South Vietnam, agreeing to only $300 million in emergency aid to extract the remaining U.S. personnel from the south. The climax of this came on May 1, 1975, with a harrowing rooftop helicopter evacuation.

Those who never return

The total cost of the war was extensive. South Vietnamese military casualties exceeded 350,000, and estimates of North Vietnamese losses range between 500,000 and 1 million. Civilian deaths cannot be accurately counted but ran into the millions. More than 58,000 U.S. troops were killed, and over 300,000 were injured. The total financial cost of the war exceeded $167 billion.

Many of Johnson’s Great Society reforms were cut back because of the increased military expenditures. Veterans returning home experienced long-lasting effects, which ranged from flashbacks to posttraumatic stress disorder to the effects of exposure to chemicals. Furthermore, the war saw no tangible results. Once the United States evacuated Saigon, the North overran the city, and Vietnam was united under communist rule.